The Agrarian Programme of Social-Democracy in the First Russian Revolution, 1905-1907

2. The Cadets

Likeall the parties, the Cadets came out in their true
colours in the Second Duma. They “found themselves” by
occupying the Centre and criticising the Rights and the Lefts from the
“state point of view”. They revealed their
counter-revolutionary nature by an obvious turn to the Right. How did they
mark that turn on the agrarian question? They marked it by finally throwing
overboard the last remnants of the idea of land nationalisation, by
completely abandoning the plan for a “state land reserve” and
by supporting the idea of making the land the peasants’property. Yes, conditions in the Russian revolution have become
such that turning to the Right means turning to wards the private ownership
of land!

Ex-ministerKutler, the Cadet Party’s official spokesman on the
agrarian question, at once proceeded to criticise the Left (12th session,
March 19, 1907). “Since nobody proposes to abolish property in
general,” exclaimed that worthy colleague of Witte and Durnovo,
“it is necessary with all emphasis. to recognise the existence of
landed property” (737). This argument fully coincides with that of
the Black Hundreds. The Black-Hundred spokesman, Krupensky, like the Cadet
Kutler, shouted: “If you are going to divide, divide
everything” (784).

Likea true bureaucrat, Kutler dealt in particular detail with the
question of different norms of “allotment” to the peasants. Not
backed by any compact class, this liberal. intellectual and bureaucrat
playing at liberalismevadesthe question ofhow muchland the landlords have and how muchcanbe taken. He prefers to
talk about “norms” in order, on the pretext of raising the question
to the state level,to obscure the issue, to conceal the fact that
the Cadets propose that landlord economy beretained. “Even
the government,” said Mr. Kutler, “has taken the path of
extending peasant land tenure” (734), so there is nothing infeasible
about the Cadets’ proposal, which is of the same bureaucratic type! By
insisting on what is practical and feasible, this Cadet, of course, throws
a veil over the fact that his criterion is whether it is possible to secure
the landlords’ consent, in other words, to adapt his planto their interests,to pander to the Black Hundredsunder the
guise of a lofty striving for the conciliation of classes. “I think,
gentlemen,” said Kutler, “that it is possible to envisage the
political conditions under which a Bill for the nationalisation of the land
could acquire the force of law, but I cannot envisage in the immediate
future the political conditions under which that law could really be put
into effect” (733). To put it bluntly, it is. possible to envisage
the overthrow of the rule of the Black-Hundred landlords, but I cannot
envisage that and, therefore, I adapt myself to this rule.

Urgingthat peasant ownership of land is preferable to the Trudoviks’
plan in general, and to “equalised tenure” in particular,
Mr. Kutler argued as follows: “If for this purpose [equalising
holdings] special officials are appoint ed, it will mean the introduction
of an incredible despotism, an interference in the lives of the people such
as we have never known before. Of course, it is proposed to place this
matter in the hands of local self-governing bodies, in the hands of persons
elected by the people themselves; but can it be taken that the people will
be fully guaranteed against the tyranny of these persons, that these
persons will always act in the interests of the people, and that the latter
will suffer no hardship? I think that the peasants who are present here
know that very often their own elected representatives, their volost and
village elders, oppress the people as much as the government officials
do” (740). Can one conceive of hypocrisy more revolting than that?
The Cadets themselves propose the setting up of land committees on which
the landlords will predominate (equal representation for landlords and
peasants, the chairman to be a government official or a landlord), but the
peasants are warned of the danger of despotism and tyranny on the part of
those whom they themselves elect! Only shameless political charlatans can
arguelike thisagainst equalised holdings, for they have neither
the principles of socialism (adhered to by the Social-Democrats, who
maintain that equalisation is impossible, but wholly support the election
of local committees), nor the principles of the landlords who maintain that
private property is the only salvation (adhered to by the Bobrinskys).

Unlikeeither the Right or the Left, the plan of the Cadets is
characterised not by what they say, but what they keep quiet about, viz.,
their proposal for the composition of the land committees, which are tocompelthe peasants to accept a “second emancipation”,
i.e:, to take poor plots at an exorbitant price. To obscure thecruxof the matter, the Cadets in the Second Duma (as in the
First) resort to downright chicanery. Take Mr. Shingaryov. He poses as a
progressive, repeats the current liberal catchwords against the flight and,
as is the fashion, bewails violence and anarchy, for which France
“paid with a century of severe upheavals” (1355). But see how
he dodges the question of the land-surveying committees:

“Onthe question of the land-surveying committees,” he says,
“we were opposed by Deputy

			      Yevreinov.[1]I do not know [sic!!] what his objections are based on; up to now
we have not said anything about this [a lie!]; I do not know what
Bill he is speaking about, or why he talks about not trusting the
people. No such Bill has yet been introduced in the State Duma; evidently,
his objections are based on a misunderstanding. I wholly associate myself
with those deputies on the Left, Uspensky and Volk-Karachevsky, who spoke
of provisional rules, of the necessity of setting up local bodies to carry
out land surveying on the spot. I think such bodies will be set up, and
probably, within the nextfew days, the Party of People’s Freedom will introduce a Bill to that
effect and we shall discuss it” (1356).

Now,is that not fraud? Are we really to believe that this person knew nothing
about the debates in the First Duma on the question of local committees, or
about the article inRechat that time? Could he really have failed to
understand Yevreinov’s perfectly plain statement?

Buthe promised to introduce a Bill “within the next few
days”, you will say. In the first place, a promise to restore what
has been obtained by fraudulent means does not cancel the fact of
fraud. Secondly, what happened “within the next few days”, was
this. Mr. Shingaryov spoke on March 29, 1907. On April 9, 1907, the Cadet
Tatarinov spoke and said: “I will now, gentlemen, deal with one more
question which, I think [he only “thinks”!], is creating considerable
controversy, namely, the question that has been raised by all the parties
on our Left: the question of local land committees. All these parties urge
the necessity of setting up local land committees on the basis of
universal, equal, and direct suffrage by secret ballot with the object of
settling the land question in the localities. We quite categorically
expressed our opposition to such committees last year, and we categorically
express it now” (1783).

Thus,on theextremely importantquestion of theactualterms of the Cadet proposal for “compulsory
alienation”, two Cadets say different things, swing from one side to
another under the blows of the Left parties which bring to light what the
Cadets wanted to keep secret! First, Mr. Shingaryov says: “I do not
know”; then: “I agree with the Left”; and then: “a
Bill within the next few days”. Mr. Tatarinov says: ”Now, as
before, we are categorically opposed”. And he adds arguments to the
effect that the Duma must not be split up into a thousand Dumas, that the
settlement of the agrarian question must not be postponed until political
reforms are carried out, until universal, etc., suffrage is introduced. But
that is just another evasion. The point at issue is not the moment when a
particular measure is to be carried out: the Left members of the Second
Duma could have no doubts whatever on that score. The point is: what are
the Cadets’real plans? Who is to compel whom in their scheme for
“compulsory alienation”? Are the landlords tocompel the peasants, or are the peasants to compel the landlords? This
question can be answered only by the composition of the land
committees. The Cadets’ view of what this composition should be was set
forth in Milyukov’s leading article inRech, in
Kutler’s Bill, and in Chuprov’s article

			    (quoted above)[2];

butin the Duma, the Cadets kept silent about it, they did not
answer the question bluntly put by Yevreinov.

Itcannot be too strongly emphasised that this conduct of the
party’s representatives in parliament is nothing more thandeception of the people by the liberals. Scarcely anybody is
deceived by the Bobrinskys and Stolypins; but very many of those who do not
want to analyse, or who are incapable of understanding, the real meaning of
political slogans and phrases are deceived by the Cadets.

Thus,the Cadets are opposed to any form of socialised land tenure in any

				form,[3]they are opposed to alienation without compensation, opposed to local land
committees in which the peasants will predominate, opposed to revolution in
general and to a peasant agrarian revolution in particular. Light is thrown
on their manoeuvring between the Left and Right (to betray the peasants to
the landlords) by their attitude towards the Peasant “Reform”
of 1861. The Left, as we shall see later on, speak of it with disgust and
indignation as of a noose put round the peasants’ necks by the
landlords. The Cadets are at one with the Bight in their affection for this
reform.

CountBobrinsky said: “Dirt has been thrown here at the cleanest
and brightest page in Russian history.... The emancipation of the peasants
is a matter beyond all reproach... the great and glorious day, February 19,
1861” (March 29, pp. 1289, 1299).

Kutlersaid: “the great Reform of 1861... the government, in the
person of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers, is renouncing Russian
history, renouncing its best and brightest pages” (May 26,
pp. 1198-99).

Thisappraisal of compulsory alienation as it was actually carried out throws
more light on the Cadet agrarian programme than all their Bills and speeches,
the object of which was to conceal their thoughts. If people regard the
dispossession of the peasants of their land by the landlords, triple redemption
payments for poor plots, and the implementation of the

charters[4]by brute military force as the brightest page, then it
becomes obvious that what they are after is a “second
emancipation”, a second enthralment of the peasants by means of
redemption payments. Bobrinsky and Kutler are at one-in their estimation of
the Reform of 1861. But Bobrinsky’s estimation directly and truly
expresses the rightly understood interests of the landlords— and
therefore it clarifies the class-consciousness of the broad masses. Praise
from the Bobrinskys means that the land lords got the best of
it. Kutler’s estimation, expressing the poverty of intellect of a
petty official who all his life has cringed to the landlords, is sheer
hypocrisy and befogs the consciousness of the masses.

Inthis connection, one more aspect of the Cadets’ policy on the
agrarian question must be noted. All the Left deputies openly side with the
peasants as a fighting force, explain the need for a struggle, and show
the landlord character of the government. The Cadets, together with the
Right deputies, take the “state point of view” and repudiate
the class struggle.

Kutlerdeclares that there is no need “radically to reconstruct
agrarian relations” (732). Savelyev warns against “touching a
mass of interests” and says: “The principle of completely
rejecting ownership would scarcely be expedient, and its application may
give rise to very big and grave complications, particularly if we bear in
mind thatthe big owners with over 50 dessiatins have very much land, namely,
79,440,000 dessiatins” (March 26, 1907, p. 1088—the peasant
points to the latifundia to prove the necessity of doing away with them;
the liberal does so to prove that it is necessary to cringe). Shingaryov
thinks it would be “an immense disaster” if the people
themselves took the land (1355). Rodichev warbles: “We do not foment
class enmity. We would like to forget the past” (632, May 16,
1907). Kapustin follows suit: “Our task is to sow everywhere peace
and justice and not to sow and foment class enmity” (1810, April
9). Krupensky is indignant at the speech of the Socialist-Revolutionary
Zimin because it was “full of hatred towards the propertied
classes” (783, March 19). In short, in condemning the class struggle,
the Cadets and the Rights are at one. But the Rights know what they are
doing. The preaching of class struggle cannot hut be harmful and dangerous
to the class against which the struggle is directed. The Rights are
faithfully guarding the interests of the feudal landlords. And what of the
Cadets? They arewaging a struggle—they say they are waging
a struggle!—they want to “compel” the landlords who are
in power, and yet they condemn the class struggle! Did the bourgeoisie that
really fought instead of acting as lackeys of the landlords behave in that
way, for instance in France? Did not that bourgeoisie call upon the people
to fight; did it not foment class enmity?  Did it not create a theory of
the class struggle?

[1]Yevreinov,a Socialist-Revolutionary, had said at the same session
(18th session, March 29, 1907): “These [land] committees, according to the
assumption of the Party of People’s Freedom, are to consist of equal
numbers of landowners and peasants, with government officials acting as
conciliators, which, of course, will undoubtedly give preponderance to the
non-peasants. Why does the party which calls itself the party of the
‘people’s freedom’ distrust committees elected not in a
bureaucratic, but in a democratic way? Probably be cause, if the committees
are elected in that way, the vast majority of those elected will be
peasants, i. e., representatives of the peasants’ interests. That
being the case, I ask, does the Party of People’s Freedom trust the
peasants? It will be remembered that in 1858, in connection with the
agrarian reform, the government bad this matter transferred to local
bodies, to committees. True, those committees consist ed of members of the
nobility, but the government is not a party of the people’s freedom,
it is a government that represents the rich and the propertied classes
generally. It relies on the nobility and trusts them. The Party of
People’s Freedom, however, wants to rely on the people, but does not
trust the people” (1326).  —Lenin

[2]Seep. 245 of this volume.—Ed.

[3]Particularlynoteworthy in this respect was the debate in the First
Duma on the question of sending the Land Bill of the 33 (for the abolition
of the private ownership of land) to committee. The Cadets (Petrunkevich,
Mukhanov, Shakhovskoi, Frenkel, Ovchinnikov, Dolgorukov, and Kokoshkin)
fiercely opposed the sending ofsucha Bill to committee, and in
this they were fully supported by Heyden. Their reasons were a disgrace to
any self-respecting liberal— they were simply police excuses used by
lackeys of the reactionary government. To refer the Bill to committee, said
Mr. Petrunkevich, means recognising that, to a certain degree, the
standpoint of such a Bill is “possible”. Mr. Zhilkin put the Cadets to
shame (23rd session, June 8, 1906) by saying that he would send to
committee both this Bill and the Bill of the extreme Right. But the Cadets
and the Right defeated the motion to send the Bill to committee by 140
votes to 78!  —Lenin

[4]Charters—deeds defining the landowning relations of the
temporarily-bound peasants and landlords upon the abolition of serfdom in
1861. These charters indicated the amount of land the peasant used before
the Reform, and defined the size of the allotment remaining in his hands
after the Reform. It also listed the duties the peasant had to perform for
the landlord. The charter served as a basis for determining the amount of
the peasant’s redemption payment.